Syrian civil war

[Walsingham]

@ Walsie

 

I'm confused why you think Obama is a weak president?

 

He doesn't feel the need to threaten countries on every international development  and has been prepared to acquiesce on several sensitive diplomatic issue like the  handing over of Snowden from Russia and the placement of the missile defense system in Europe.

 

Gone is the bravado rhetoric of " wanted dead or alive" and " you are with us or against us". But these changes actually make the USA stronger in my opinion as they seen as more consolatory.

 

Bin Laden was killed on Obamas watch and even though they have less deployable troops they have made massive investments in Special Forces and military hardware  like the Drones and the Prism program

 

In what way is he weak or is America weak compared to the past?

 

That's a fair question. I will need to compose my thoughts more fully and come back on that.

 

However, to immediately clarify. I said he was a aweak President. Not that America was weak.

[Hildegard]

The situation in Syria is complicated to say the least. There are many indications that Chemical weapons are being used but no actual proof who is using it against whom. Most people are assuming that Assad's forces are behind it given the fact the regular military has stockpiles of Chemical weapons. On the other hand with all the disarray in Syria one of the rebel fractions could of easily taken such weapons under their control and use them against whomever. Take this video for an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eip0zaJIRfk and disregard the title of the video. Who are these people, where exactly and who are they fighting for? This leads me to another point that many 'youtube video proof' is easily manipulated and abused by either parties involved. And many such videos are grabbed ASAP by the mainstream media without credible information about its background because sensationalism is the guidance, not facts or truth. That comes second or third or way behind. 

 

When it comes to US led military intervention it's not going to be because of WMD usage. Like Libya and Iraq, military interventions are not done for altruistic reasons like freedom, democracy, saving civilians and such. That's just propaganda for the public to sugarcoat the entire thing. No, this ain't a conspiracy theory it's just realism. Assad's regime is a western adversary and with the conflict in Syria and the Chemical weapons factor the US is in a position to make a move. Calculate the geopolitical, economic and strategic advantages of a military intervention, the pros and cons, make an extensive feasibility study and make a call. Wars are too expensive, not just financially, to be fought for fairy tale reasons presidents and prime ministers tell to the public. They are like business investments and if research calculation shows that value of ROI is going to be lower then 1 there ain't gonna be no military intervention no matter if half a million more civilians die. 

 

In my opinion if the situation on the ground in Syria was similar like in Afghanistan we would of witnessed a military intervention by now or in the very near future. There is no similar force like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with whom the US teamed up and overthrew the Taliban. What a about the rebels you say? They are nothing like the Northern Alliance in terms of organization, cohesion and most of all their beliefs. Many of the rebels are Islamist, many of those are the same ones that were crossing borders from Syria to Iraq to fight the US. In case of a US led ground invasion I think the war with Assad would just be a prelude to another war between many factions of the Rebels against the US and among themselves. If the US just helped the Rebels with airstrikes to overpower Assad a question pops out: is it better to have Assad in charge of Syria or a possible Islamic government in the years to come (or a Syria engulfed in a civil war without an end)? In case of Syria there are way more variables then in Libya, if it wasn't so planes would of been launched long ago. 

[obyknven]

 

West could hit Syria in days, envoys tell rebels..

Edited August 27, 2013 by LadyCrimson

[Walsingham]

Interesting view, Hilde. I know you track very different news sources, so it's good to have you on topic (although I know we don't often agree). So I won't be boring and argue your point about pragmatism. For once.

 

~

 

It occurs to me that a good reason for publicly blaming Syria and threatening action - even if we do nothing - is to placate public opinion. Not in our own countries but across the 'Arab spring' nations. Regardless of what we have available, we have to beat the drum, or be labelled as complicit in the crime.

[BruceVC]

I see the entire Arab League is also convinced that Assad is behind the Chemical attack and have suggested an international response. The USA, UK and France also now are saying they confidant that Assad is responsible

 

It amazes me that there are still people on these forums that dispute the opinions of countries that not only are involved in Syria but clearly have more intelligence in these matters than we do . And please don't say " but look at the pretense to the invasion of Iraq, intelligence reports also said Saddam had WMD"

 

This is not the same argument as we know that Chemical weapons were used last week and there is no need to search for them
 

[Guard Dog]

 

It amazes me that there are still people on these forums that dispute the opinions of countries that not only are involved in Syria but clearly have more intelligence in these matters than we do . And please don't say " but look at the pretense to the invasion of Iraq, intelligence reports also said Saddam had WMD"

 

 

Because if there is one thing I know it is that a number of nations have already decided how they want this to turn out and are more than willing to distort the facts, or ignore them to achieve that outcome. That is not to say they are wrong, only that I don't believe a word they say. For all that matters.

 

I would nor believe the US government right now if it told me rain was wet.

[BruceVC]

 

 

It amazes me that there are still people on these forums that dispute the opinions of countries that not only are involved in Syria but clearly have more intelligence in these matters than we do . And please don't say " but look at the pretense to the invasion of Iraq, intelligence reports also said Saddam had WMD"

 

 

Because if there is one thing I know it is that a number of nations have already decided how they want this to turn out and are more than willing to distort the facts, or ignore them to achieve that outcome. That is not to say they are wrong, only that I don't believe a word they say. For all that matters.

 

I would nor believe the US government right now if it told me rain was wet.

 

 

GD, if you have time switch to CNN they are about to have a live briefing at the White House on Syria 

[Leferd]

WH saying that chemical weapons have been used and very little doubt that it was Assad. Very clear language.

[Walsingham]

Bruce, I just don't buy the 'we know best' argument on this one. We may have sources in the right area, but I know what is involved in CBRNE recconnaissance, and I doubt we've got the enough of the right kit to tell exactly what was used. Even if we did, I doubt we know exactly who made it or used it. You're talking about an incident that would involve hundreds of police officers for weeks _if it had occurred in the mainland UK_.

 

I certainly don't believe we have sufficient grounds for an open-ended commitment to military action.

 

And I think if I'm not willing to fall in line, there's not many who will.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, I just don't buy the 'we know best' argument on this one. We may have sources in the right area, but I know what is involved in CBRNE recconnaissance, and I doubt we've got the enough of the right kit to tell exactly what was used. Even if we did, I doubt we know exactly who made it or used it. You're talking about an incident that would involve hundreds of police officers for weeks _if it had occurred in the mainland UK_.

 

I certainly don't believe we have sufficient grounds for an open-ended commitment to military action.

 

And I think if I'm not willing to fall in line, there's not many who will.

 

I hear you but I think you are underestimating the credibility of the various  global powers who are saying Assad is behind this and the type of intelligence they do have but they can't share with the public yet. The White House has said they have proof  but they need to make a decision if they can make it available as it will reveal there sources. I can understand there reluctance?

[Walsingham]

Naturally I understand the problem with sources. But that means their intelligence is HUMINT. The case (as written) for WMD in Iraq was based finally on HUMINT, and that turned out to be balls.

 

If the US does go to war over this, do you think we could have some kind of whipround from all the Obama supporters who hated Bush for invading Iraq?

[kgambit]

Jay Carney - "We're not in the business of regime change."  27 August 2013 White House Press Briefing

 

Barack Obama -  "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way ... For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."  18 Aug 2011

 

 

That press conference did not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.  In fact, I had a feeling of deja vu all over again.   

 

I'll pass on the whipround if you don't mind.   

Edited August 27, 2013 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

Naturally I understand the problem with sources. But that means their intelligence is HUMINT. The case (as written) for WMD in Iraq was based finally on HUMINT, and that turned out to be balls.

 

If the US does go to war over this, do you think we could have some kind of whipround from all the Obama supporters who hated Bush for invading Iraq?

 

Yeah that would happen to a certain degree to Obama if its found out that Assad didn't use the Chemical weapons but an attack on Syria wouldn't be on the same scale as the invasion of Iraq. Both from a timeline or logistics perspective

[WDeranged]

Miley Twerking On Things We Should Talk About

Edited August 27, 2013 by WDeranged

[Malcador]

Well, here we go again.

[Blodhemn]

Jay Carney - "We're not in the business of regime change."  27 August 2013 White House Press Briefing

 

Barack Obama -  "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way ... For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."  18 Aug 2011

 

 

That press conference did not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.  In fact, I had a feeling of deja vu all over again.   

 

I'll pass on the whipround if you don't mind.   

That's the Obama admin in a nutshell. The only difference between a Democrat and Republican is that the Democrat says please and thank you after dropping bombs. And oddly enough, that is all it takes for some people to feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[pmp10]

I'm quite surprised so many people are trying hard not to blame Assad for chemical weapons use.

It can almost seem you would rather see the killing continue because you don't fancy either side.

[josan motierre]

I'm quite surprised so many people are trying hard not to blame Assad for chemical weapons use.

It can almost seem you would rather see the killing continue because you don't fancy either side.

 

Well, that would be jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence - which is precisely our problem with immediately condemning Assad with doing something that would severely risk foreign intervention... which would be his downfall.

 

But if you're perfectly ok with jumping to conclusions that fit your bias, irrespective of the truth, then you're a rather scary person. As for the killing, that will continue anyway regardless.

[Walsingham]

Out of interest, who else is old enough to remember Rwanda?

[Oerwinde]

We looked at Rwanda during a political science class in high school, but it was a few years after the fact. Ethnic cleansing and civil war are a mite different though.

[Walsingham]

Well, I'm happy to argue that point. i was more interested in how that affected the lense through which this is viewed.

[Walsingham]

+BREAK+

 

There are unconfirmed reports that Syrian President Bashar al Assad headed to Tehran with his family members the evening of Aug. 27, according to Egyptian El-Nahar TV. According to Iranian state television, an Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry source said al Assad's plane landed in Tehran's Khomeini Airport.

 

[Malcador]

I'm quite surprised so many people are trying hard not to blame Assad for chemical weapons use.

It can almost seem you would rather see the killing continue because you don't fancy either side.

Well considering the sources that are saying it was obviously him, you have to be somewhat skeptical.

[Walsingham]

I said earlier that the _threat_ of a western strike would serve to disrupt Assad's command, control, and logistics.

 

This just in from Stratfor.com
 

 

Syrian regime officials are evacuating strategic facilities in anticipation of a Western strike on military targets, the Times of Israel reported Aug. 28, citing Al Arabiya. New facilities are being set up in nearby secret locations and alternative sites, such as schools.

 

[BruceVC]

 

I'm quite surprised so many people are trying hard not to blame Assad for chemical weapons use.

It can almost seem you would rather see the killing continue because you don't fancy either side.

Well considering the sources that are saying it was obviously him, you have to be somewhat skeptical.

 

 

Nope I'm not sceptical at all, and neither is the Arab League and almost all Western countries.